Cycle paths to get another review

johnboy 3 October 2009 63

Andrew Barr has announced that we’re going to take another look at footpaths and cycle paths across this fair city.

As part of the ACT Government’s development of the Sustainable Transport Action Plan 2010-2016, a review is being undertaken to improve cycling and pedestrian networks.

A contract has been awarded to a local company, Cardno Eppell Olsen, for $140,000 to undertake an extensive review of Canberra’s commuter bicycle network in line with the Sustainable Transport Action Plan.

‘Ere we go again!


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
63 Responses to Cycle paths to get another review
Filter
Order
Danman Danman 12:34 pm 17 Oct 09

While we are at it, lets register people using pedestrian crossings, to make sure they are physically fit enough to handle the stress of crossing the road – the amount of pedestrians I have seen that are swerving and practically falling over due to exhaustion is amazing

/sarcasm

Absurd innit.

Aeek Aeek 10:08 pm 16 Oct 09

Genie said :

I am also not a fan of those stupid, YES STUPID green lanes. They are one of the most pathetic ideas I have ever seen. I watched a car accident at one of these green lanes, because the car doing 80kph was simply pulling off into the new third lane. No need to slow down to turn a corner, speed didn’t and shouldn’t be adjusted to take this exit. Next thing I saw was the car coming to a sudden halt to let the cyclist go past and the poor guy getting rear ended.

The cyclist may have contributed but the driver made the mistake, there was always the bailout option of aborting the exit, plus its not that hard to look ahead for potential issues. The cyclist would have been visible ahead unless they were going even faster?

Genie Genie 12:53 pm 16 Oct 09

GET THE BIKES OFF ROADS THAT ARE OVER 60KPH!
Its crazy that with one short lapse of concentration you can land yourself in jail and kill someone.

While I don’t 100% agree with the second part of this statement.. I feel that having bikes on roads over 60kph does impose alot more dangers, and would seem logical to have riders separated from the cars.

I am also not a fan of those stupid, YES STUPID green lanes. They are one of the most pathetic ideas I have ever seen. I watched a car accident at one of these green lanes, because the car doing 80kph was simply pulling off into the new third lane. No need to slow down to turn a corner, speed didn’t and shouldn’t be adjusted to take this exit. Next thing I saw was the car coming to a sudden halt to let the cyclist go past and the poor guy getting rear ended.

I’ll throw an idea out… maybe a licencing setup needs to be implemented? All cyclists riding in cycle paths on the roads must be:-
a) physically fit enough to handle the road – the amount of cyclists I have seen that are swerving and practically falling over due to exhaustion is amazing;
b) know the road rules applicable to cyclists – perhaps a seminar similar to the P-Off courses that is mandatory for them to be able to;
c) hold a licence – maybe a new category added onto a drivers licence like the p-off/motorcycle/provisional letters on the back of the cards with the licence only being able to be obtained by the seminar.

This in my opinion seems logical too… For those of you who do ride on the roads everyday, perhaps being deemed suitable to ride on the roads and issued some form of license would make anti-cyclists a bit more happier.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 4:01 pm 12 Oct 09

Clown Killer said :

I wonder what they do with the rest of their miserable and meaningless lives?

Writing angry letters to the editor about trifling quotidian matters that no-one really cares about anyway?

Stamp collecting?

Decoupage maybe?

Clown Killer Clown Killer 3:28 pm 12 Oct 09

I just love the conga-line of anti-bike fools that trot out in ecah of these threads to show the world how little they understand about road rules, to confess just how incapable they are at safely driving a vehicle on the road and to regail us all with tales of how ‘they once saw a guy on a bike doing somthing naughty’.

I wonder what they do with the rest of their miserable and meaningless lives?

Jim Jones Jim Jones 11:03 am 12 Oct 09

He does this in every cycling thread. Shot down every time by the evil cyclists with their so-called ‘logic’ and ‘reasoned arguments’. But that doesn’t stop him, he just keeps ploughing through, regardless of how bad it gets.

Deckard Deckard 5:49 pm 11 Oct 09

Dvaey, it just ain’t going to happen. Get over it.

dvaey dvaey 11:44 am 11 Oct 09

Aeek said :

Dvaey, making up stuff doesn’t make it true. Bicycles are vehicles,its in the road rules

What did I make up?
I said that any driver must ensure their vehicle is legal for the road, and appropriately registered and theyre appropriately licenced? Is this not true?
I also pointed out that you have no way to identify the owner/rider of a bike, since there are no requirements for identification. Is this not true?
I also pointed out that any vehicle, no matter its size (except for a bicycle) is required to be registered, whether its a little scooter or a 20-ton truck. Is this not true?

I put my opinion out there and back it up with some facts. You put your opinion out there and say Im ‘making stuff up’, but you havent pointed out what I made up exactly?

Aeek said :

They are as fully registered as they need to be, the same can’t be said for too many motor vehicles.

This is my point. I understand that theyre as registered as ‘they need to be’, however this consideration is based on the fact that a majority of their usage is not on public roads. As soon as they start riding on public roads with the larger vehicles, I believe the laws should be changed to reflect that. As others have said, some bikes can reach speeds of 60km/hr, when youre travelling at that speed, youre more in the league of cars than little johnny on his trike.

You also insinuate that not many motor vehicles are not registered. Firstly, Im wondering where your stats are for this? Also, how does this compre to the number of bikes which are not registered (0%)? The difference is, what happens if a police officer sees a car without plates or without paid registration.. they get pulled over and issued a ticket. What happens if a cyclist behaves dangerously, failing to give way, or the like.. you have to suck it up and add a little more resentment to your feelings about cyclists. If a cyclist dislikes the actions of a car, they have methods of reporting this to the police, a driver has no such recourse, and seemingly you dont believe that drivers should have that recourse, or that cyclists should be able to be held responsible.

phototext phototext 11:28 pm 10 Oct 09

“Our taxes paid for the bruce stadium, yet if I ever attend an event there Im still required to pay, and stating that ‘I pay tax, and my tax dollars built your stadium’, still wont get you off the hook for having to pay if you want to enter the area.”

You are paying for the event, not the venue.

Why would you go otherwise, to look at a bunch of empty seats ?

Aeek Aeek 7:44 pm 10 Oct 09

Dvaey, making up stuff doesn’t make it true. Bicycles are vehicles,its in the road rules.
They are as fully registered as they need to be, the same can’t be said for too many motor vehicles.

dvaey dvaey 1:22 pm 10 Oct 09

Horrid said :

Actually Chewy, the question is not a matter of opinion, but logical fact.

It is well known by anyone who does the research that cyclists DO pay for their road use- the various means by which they contribute the money or save the community money have been pointed out countless times before.

Its also well known by anyone who does the research, that a driver who is on the road without ensuring the particular vehicle they are driving, is legally registered and permitted on the road, and also to ensure that they are properly licenced, and that payment for both is up-to-date, regardless of the rego/licence state of any other vehicle or driver at their address.

You may get off calling others ignorant, but if you arent aware that each vehicle you use on the road must be registered, then it appears that you sir are the ignorant one.

Our taxes paid for the bruce stadium, yet if I ever attend an event there Im still required to pay, and stating that ‘I pay tax, and my tax dollars built your stadium’, still wont get you off the hook for having to pay if you want to enter the area.

Horrid Horrid 11:04 am 10 Oct 09

Actually Chewy, the question is not a matter of opinion, but logical fact.

It is well known by anyone who does the research that cyclists DO pay for their road use- the various means by which they contribute the money or save the community money have been pointed out countless times before. So anyone who claims otherwise is by automatic definition either ignorant, stupid, or a liar. This is a simple matter of fact rather than who disagrees with who.

Why are you a supporter of ignorance, stupidity and deceit?

phototext phototext 12:21 pm 08 Oct 09

“save their breath for people who do something stupid or rude”

and dangerous.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 9:59 am 08 Oct 09

vibes said :

The other day, when driving to Manuka along Mugga Way there were a group of three bike riders in front of me. Two were side by side, the other was tagging behind. Being very careful and giving them as much space as possible l turned left into Moresby Cres , I then heard a chorus of abuse as l went around the corner. For what reason still puzzles me but , next time l will just run them bloody over.

Without being there, that fact that you were close enough to hear abuse in your car as you went around the corner seems to indicate that you cut them off. Cyclists, usually in the middle of a rigourous aerobic activity, tend to save their breath for people who do something stupid or rude.

Of course if your wide innocent Bambi eyes are genuinely innocent, don’t worry about it. Well done for being aware of cyclists on the road. Like romping with little kids, you just have to remember you’re bigger and heavier than them, and shrug off whatever they do.

chewy14 chewy14 9:45 am 08 Oct 09

Horrid,
the fact that you think there is only three options all of which conclude with saying the commenter who disagrees with you is ignorant, stupid or a liar only prove:
a) you are an ignoramus.
b) you have no idea what your talking about
c) you like straw men
d) all of the above

What Kramer said above is the way to go. More education and awareness will work better than more taxes or fees.

phototext phototext 9:00 am 08 Oct 09

#46.

Is this supposed to make cyclists look bad ?

“next time I will just run them bloody over.”

Real smart.

Aeek Aeek 10:14 pm 07 Oct 09

vibes: get over it, although if you heard the abuse you were rather close – maybe you could have waited?

vibes vibes 6:16 pm 07 Oct 09

The other day, when driving to Manuka along Mugga Way there were a group of three bike riders in front of me. Two were side by side, the other was tagging behind. Being very careful and giving them as much space as possible l turned left into Moresby Cres , I then heard a chorus of abuse as l went around the corner. For what reason still puzzles me but , next time l will just run them bloody over.

Horrid Horrid 10:02 pm 06 Oct 09

On a post I started several months back, I asked the following question of people who make posts stating or implying that cyclists don’t pay for their road use:
Are you:
1. Not aware of the countless taxes that cyclists pay towards road construction costs- i.e. ignorant
or
2. Aware of them but unable to comprehend that this means they do in fact pay for their use- i.e. Stupid
or
3. Both aware of the above and able to understand it, but stil choose to make such posts- i.e. a liar.

Given the number of times that this issue has been debated on this thread, I am guessing that almost all of such posters fall into the third category.

Fisho Fisho 6:13 pm 06 Oct 09

Just convert every vehicle to Flintstones drive and everyone will be equal.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site